Howe many?

[Luv_our_club]

Ummm i am pretty sure the punch was intentional. Not much venom , but if not intentional i don't know who else lifted his fist and arm up and propelled it forward into cripps face.

The punch was intentional. i don't think he intended to hit the face.

If you think that it was.... fair enough. But if you think it is evident, it isn't. So.... can't be pretty sure.

 

[Strange Cat]

It is on topic champ, not sure why geelong supporters are getting on their high horse when they have 2 of the most protected players in the game. Both selwood and Dangerfield used their legs dangerously yet there is silence but when a no name who plays for hawthorn does it all hell breaks loose. If you can't see it for what it is than your a lost cause.

We are talking about the Howe incident quit your bitching about Geelongn it’s pathetic

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

WTF does this even mean??

“Ordinarily it would have been a low impact (grading)," Christian said.
"But as a consequence of a potential to cause a more serious injury, we've upgraded it to medium impact.
"It's obviously something that we don't want to see in the game...”

Why not upgrade it to severe impact? Or first degree murder?
Do the rules really allow a player to be punished for potential impact?
Surely if it’s low impact, then it’s low impact.

We’d better hope that Christian bloke never gets a job at VicRoads:
“He was caught driving at 4km/h above the speed limit, but we’ve jailed him for 2 years for potential culpable driving.”

Potential to cause more serious injury - aka the Hawthorn clause. Hodge, Lewis, Lake, now Howe. IIRC they tried it on for another Hawk earlier this year. Has ANY other player EVER had this clause applied?

Cripps threw the first punch (no excuse). Cripps bent at the knee, dropping his chin (no excuse). Every other similar punch has been a fine or one week. Cripps played out the game unaffected = Clearly low impact. But the Media....

The continual, ongoing and unrelenting bias against Hawthorn in the media has long term effects, exactly as seen here, just as much as in the ridiculous umpiring on the weekend.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Yeah, good call.

• Howe could become the first player in more than four years to be rubbed out for the action
• Hawthorn skipper Jarryd Roughead the last to be banned for such an incident back in 2014.
• There have been 17 players fined for tripping since Roughead was last suspended.
• NO WORRIES Eagle and Cat stars cleared

Selwood deliberately tripped an opponent earlier in the year and he wasn't even fined.

Selwood has multiple offences that were just 'coincidental'. Just like he doesn't "duck", or "flop".

Interesting that the Roughead incident also due outrage as it was the first resulting in suspension for some time. There must be some pattern here....

 

[Back One Out]

Am I the only one who thinks Howe was slightly unlucky with both incidents? Not with the MRO findings, but unlucky to connect like he did in both incidents... He is going to miss 4/5/6 matches over a couple of innocuous incidents which turned out really bad for all concerned. 5 or 6 matches is Barry Hall king-hit territory for a quiet, unassuming, fair player.

I reckon he aimed that retaliatory punch at Cripps's chest region, but caught him flush on the jaw by accident. Cripps had a whack at him. Howe whacked him back and was probably spun out that he dropped him. The suspension is fair enough, but I don't think the strike was intentional. Not to the jaw. Mundine could not have landed one better if he tried.

As for the trip, it was one of those instinctive actions which the AFL automatically suspended players for in the past (for good reason, as shown by Fisher's fractured leg) but in recent years, the MRP has gone pretty soft and has resorted to fining players for the exact same action. So if Fisher didn't get injured, Howe would've received a $1500 fine.

I actually disagree with the AFL fining players for tripping with a swinging leg/foot. It should be an automatic 1 week suspension (minimum), whether an injury occurs or not.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Yeah cause Cripps is soft...hes a hard nut who doesn't flop

Have you ever been hit on the jaw when not expecting it? I'm sure according to you youd still be standing.

Selwood and Dangerfield are both hard-nuts. Both flop multiple times a game.

Cripps struck first, made the contact high by his body movements, and took a dive, playing it up for the free.

Howe deserved a week for being stupid, not to be torn apart by the commentators and media and now MRP.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

THIS deserves a bigger penalty than whatever they deem fit for Howe on Fisher. That's disgraceful by Dangerfield.

 

[Back One Out]

THIS deserves a bigger penalty than whatever they deem fit for Howe on Fisher. That's disgraceful by Dangerfield.

Delete this post

Come on, dude

Debatable whether it was a free kick for kicking in danger

 

[Back One Out]

The commentators spent the first almost 3 quarters saying Cripps has been quiet must have been the hit from Howe
They setup that narrative and kept reminding everyone Howe had hit him
First "highlight" from the match was Howe's hit as well
Media have been all over it even calling four weeks earlier today

This is pretty standard from the media where the Hawks are concerned
They realise they're the tail which wags the dog (the MRO being the dog)

I just roll my eyes when I read the drivel on here about the "latitude" our club receives from the MRO

 

[stuballs]

Looks like Howe played too much mortal Kombat as a kid.

 

[Gralin]

This is pretty standard from the media where the Hawks are concerned
They realise they're the tail which wags the dog (the MRO being the dog)

I just roll my eyes when I read the drivel on here about the "latitude" our club receives from the MRO

I dont think its specific to the Hawks
I think stars mostly get incidents talked down, unless they are in brownlow contention, then they talk about how it could cost them the medal and "nobody" wants to see that

Your more average player gets talked about a lot more, your player with a bad rep tends to get hung out to dry, doesnt really matter the team

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Delete this post

Come on, dude

Debatable whether it was a free kick for kicking in danger

You just don't go in feet/knees first, especially when other players are already at the ball. That's almost as bad as Goodes efforts and yet barely a mention. Dangerfield's not soft, so it's not a lack of courage that caused that action.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I dont think its specific to the Hawks
I think stars mostly get incidents talked down, unless they are in brownlow contention, then they talk about how it could cost them the medal and "nobody" wants to see that

Your more average player gets talked about a lot more, your player with a bad rep tends to get hung out to dry, doesnt really matter the team

You're quite correct, they've previously gone at it for Demons, Lions and Bulldogs players.

(Lewis, Hodge and Lake for those playing at home).

 

[stax on the mull]

Can't see a trip here?

Broken tib

That's damning vision. It looks terrible because it is. You can't kick an opponents legs like that. I would say its reckless rather than careless.

 

[asanque]

Potential to cause more serious injury - aka the Hawthorn clause. Hodge, Lewis, Lake, now Howe. IIRC they tried it on for another Hawk earlier this year. Has ANY other player EVER had this clause applied?

Cripps threw the first punch (no excuse). Cripps bent at the knee, dropping his chin (no excuse). Every other similar punch has been a fine or one week. Cripps played out the game unaffected = Clearly low impact. But the Media....

The continual, ongoing and unrelenting bias against Hawthorn in the media has long term effects, exactly as seen here, just as much as in the ridiculous umpiring on the weekend.

I cannot repeat this post enough.

This ridiculous 'potential to cause serious injury' seems to only be brought out for incidents involving Hawthorn players.

The Hawks have been the only club to have players suspended for:
1. 'Attempting' striking - Rioli
2. At least 5 players penalised more harshly for 'potential to cause serious injury' (Hodge, Lewis, Lake, Howe, Buddy). Find me an example of any other club that has had more than 2 players penalised more harshly under this provision?
3. 'Standing on a players leg' -1 week, despite two previous far more serious precedents including Enright and Minson that only copped a fine.

Now, possibly 5 weeks for Howe?

Hawks need to get proper legal counsel and challenge both.

As a sidenote: Michael Christian has been abysmal and should be sacked.
The Walker and Gibbs reports as clear examples.

 

[LordLucifer]

I can't see the trip. I have tried. I just can't see it.

It will be a lot clearer if you take your Hawthorn goggles off.

 

[LordLucifer]

2-weeks for each incident with a 4-match suspended sentence hanging over his head till the end of 2019 is sufficient penalty.

 

[kaiserchief13]

Broke his leg. He should get 2 weeks more than the broken leg lasts for that incident alone.

Add another 2 for the hit on Cripps.

What a dog of a player

 

[hawkman]

The Cripps one, think he was aiming for the chest and missed but because of the look of it was always going to get 2

The Fisher one i think it was unlucky. He was slightly late to the ball. The speed Fisher spins aways from the contest puts him an awkward position. Fisher gets up from it and he cops a fine, think he would be very unlucky to get more than 2 for that

 

[F_therest]

Selwood and Dangerfield are both hard-nuts. Both flop multiple times a game.

Cripps struck first, made the contact high by his body movements, and took a dive, playing it up for the free.

Howe deserved a week for being stupid, not to be torn apart by the commentators and media and now MRP.

Really can't see how you think Cripps took a dive there. There was none of the trademark signs of a dive.

 

[F_therest]

You just don't go in feet/knees first, especially when other players are already at the ball. That's almost as bad as Goodes efforts and yet barely a mention. Dangerfield's not soft, so it's not a lack of courage that caused that action.

Yeah he shouldn't go in like that but he didn't actually make contact or hurt anyone.

If he did that and hit a players leg and broke it, i'm sure he'd get weeks.

 

[F_therest]

The Cripps one, think he was aiming for the chest and missed but because of the look of it was always going to get 2

The Fisher one i think it was unlucky. He was slightly late to the ball. The speed Fisher spins aways from the contest puts him an awkward position. Fisher gets up from it and he cops a fine, think he would be very unlucky to get more than 2 for that

Yes i think Howe was aiming for Cripps' upper chest. Though he shouldn't do that either Cripps just happens to lower himself a bit meaning it connects with his jaw. Still the onus is on Howe as he shouldn't be throwing punches.

Prob a bit unlucky with the Fisher one as well that it happened to fracture his leg...if Fisher got up unhurt prob just a week for a dangerous trip. Now looking at more.

 

[Luv_our_club]

Can't see a trip here?

Broken tib

That's damning vision. It looks terrible because it is. You can't kick an opponents legs like that. I would say its reckless rather than careless.

It looks like he speeds up his leg in your post.... but from another angle you see that was the speed he was running.

 

[Andrew Mc]

From the vision, I think he was coming, in, was wrong footed, stuck the leg out (it happens). Did he mean to break his leg? Of course not. But he did, so I think he's going to get 3 at least.

The punch had to be a couple of weeks - you can't go around smacking blokes in the jaw.

 

[sprockets]

How many will Howe get for the trip that looks like it has broken Fisher's leg?
View attachment 531058

Reminds me of this (two weeks in a row from Selwood) except Howe was good enough to make contact: